Infra Kit.workflow.review

Review Loop (PR Readiness + Feedback)

Use this skill when you are preparing to open a pull request, requesting review, or responding to review feedback for infra changes (Terraform/Helm/GitHub Actions/platform config).

Outcomes

• Ensure the PR tells reviewers: what changed, why, risk, rollout/rollback, and verification evidence
• Reduce back-and-forth by front-loading required context
• Provide a consistent process for responding to feedback without losing traceability to the ticket

Where This Fits In The Flow

• Use after infra-kit.workflow.verify and before merge.
• Pair with infra-kit.workflow.audit for the cross-cutting safety gate.

Output Rules

• Write PR-ready summary content into the work item:
  • docs/infras-kit/work-items/<id>-<slug>/confluence.md (can double as PR body)
  • and ensure implementation-notes.md contains verification evidence.

PR Readiness Checklist

Confirm:

• The PR links to the ticket and matches the scope in ticket.md.
• Acceptance criteria are testable and mapped to:
  • tasks (tasks.md)
  • verification evidence (implementation-notes.md or verification.md)
• The PR description includes:
  • what changed and why
  • impact and risk
  • rollout steps
  • rollback steps and trigger
  • verification commands run + key results
• Any required manual steps (GitHub UI settings, approvals, secrets) are called out explicitly.

Responding To Review Feedback

1. Categorize feedback:
   • correctness/safety blockers
   • clarity/docs requests
   • style/nits
2. For blockers, prioritize the smallest safe change and re-run verification.
3. Update artifacts when needed:
   • if scope changes, update ticket.md / spec.md
   • if the plan changes, update plan.md and reflect it in tasks.md
4. Record what changed in implementation-notes.md and add new evidence.
5. When you disagree, propose an alternative with explicit trade-offs and a way to verify.

Guardrails

• Do not merge with unresolved [NEEDS CLARIFICATION: ...] unless explicitly accepted as a spike with [ASSUMPTION: ...].
• Do not answer reviewers with speculation; either cite evidence or propose a test.